The present time is on the left. Graph A shows temperature proxy from Antarctic ice cores, graph B shows 0-150m depth ocean temperature in black

Abstract

Temperature reconstructions from a shallow core (375 m) from the Peru Margin are used to test the influence of Subantarctic Mode Water (SAMW) on the eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP) thermostad and thus the effect of southern high latitude climate on interior ocean heat content (OHC). Temperature estimates, based on Mg/Ca measurements of planktonic and benthic foraminifera (Neogloboquadrina dutertrei and Uvigerina spp ., respectively) show higher temperatures in the early Holocene, a cooling of ∼2°∼2° by 8 kyr B.P. and after relatively stable temperatures to the present. The temperature signal is similar in direction and timing to a rather robust Holocene climate signal from the southern high latitudes suggesting it originated there and was advected to the core site in the EEP. Based on the N. dutertrei and Uvigerina Mg/Ca temperature and δ13C records we conclude that SAMW acted as a conduit transporting the southern high latitude climate to the interior of the equatorial Pacific. We propose that the early Holocene warmth is related to a southward migration of the Subtropical Front, which enhanced the influence of warm subtropical water in the region of SAMW formation and was then transported to the EEP thermostad. The early Holocene warmth recorded in the EEP thermostad has a muted sea surface temperature expression indicating this mechanism is important for sequestering heat in the ocean interior.

h/t Hockeyschtick which compares the warming of the last half century with the holocene era:

Twenty thousand years ago the Earth was warming and the huge masses of accumulated ice, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, were starting to melt.

The ice field over New York Central Park area at that time was almost a mile deep, not wide, DEEP.

The extra energy from the Sun initially went into converting the Ice to Water and energy required to convert the ice to water (latent heat of fusion) left nothing to take temperatures any higher than Zero degrees C.

Once the ice was melted the Solar energy could heat the water and hence the “hot spot” 10,000 years ago in the above graph.

It is also very interesting that this research is about the Southern Hemisphere which was much less affected by the ice than the North.

The Model: place a few ice cubes in a glass of water near a small heat source and check the water temp.

Temp wont go up much until the ice is gone.

I know this is very basic but sometimes basic is useful to set the scene.

Paper cups!!!!! They’re made from trees. You’re not allowed to cut trees down, that is unless you are going to use energy to turn them into wood pellets, and then use a lot more energy from fossil fuel to ship them to the UK; and then burn them to produce life threatening CO2.

The interesting question is this: why after the ice had mostly gone about 8,000 years ago did the temperature drop when the “model” above says it should have risen?

Yep, somebody deliberately turned the Sun down a few notches.

See how the graphs show a very even temperature for the last 8 ky. It would be interesting to see a graph of the last 25 ky for these water temps but even more interesting to get a graph of Northern hemisphere Ice temperatures which can go well below zero.

Graph B above shows water temp below zero but only a degree or so and this is pressure related. Ice, on the other hand can get much lower.

The NH would have been shrouded in dust for a year or more and we could probably expect increased volcanic activity in the aftermath. Then the cooling might expand the ice and the albedo effect would come into play.

It was supposedly an asteroid which broke up over the Middle East with a particularly large chunk hitting Quebec, but there is no definitive proof that it even happened.

On the WUWT blog roll there is a group of enthusiasts on a hunt for proof, its called the Tusk or something like that.

The science is not settled and it may simply be a typical DO Event without bombardment.

The oceans to 700m have supposedly warmed up by 1.2×10^23 joules since 1993. The energy required to melt ice once its already at 0°C, is 335 J/g. That is enough energy to melt 3.6×10^20 g or roughly 400 000 cubic km or about 1% of the Greenland ice sheet. That’s enough water to raise sea levels 1m but they actually went up 110m. Then you need to factor in the energy required to warm the surface to today’s temperature and all the sea ice that melted.

Nobody knows exactly why the ice ages started nor ended but the science is in; the latest warming was due to fossil fuel use by man.

They have gone up 110m since the last ice age. It would have required over 100 times the energy to melt the ice from the last ice age as it has taken AGW to raise the heat content of the oceans to 1.2X10^23 J. (not including melting the sea ice and warming the oceans).

Most of this AGW energy has gone into the oceans and its piddly compared to what happens naturally. Its not even 1% of what nature can do. How can you be sure that its AGW

I guess that you needed to read the comment it was a reply to but was it that difficult to follow?

30,000 year ago when the BIG MELT started, man was pushed to the tropics by the massive ice fields in the Northern hemisphere.

Unfortunately Neanderthalers did not survive the crush and no longer have any ancestors to tell the tale but we do know that there were so few of our ancestors left after the last ice age that even if they all farted and belched hot fumes continuously for 24 hours each day THEY COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT FOLLOWED.

As you have admitted, oceans rose 110 metres or so in the 10,000 years of the big melt.

This is an average of 11 mm per year FOR 10,000 YEARS.

Oceans have fallen 4 metres in the last 8,000 years and are currently rising a piddling 1 mm or less per year.

Despite the increased fornication and heavy breading of our recent ancestors and the current world population of several Billion people

Despite the massive output of hot air we still do not have the capacity to influence Earths Atmospheric temperature by either liberating heat into the air or by the devious production of the dreaded Carbon Dioxide.

No KK. I’m a sceptic! I’m pointing out that nature could provide 100 times the energy increase that supposedly was caused by man just based on the amount of ice that melted at the end of the last ice age.

From now on, each day when I go to the beach to check the alkalinity with my litmus paper, I will also take a rectal thermometer to monitor the rising temperature of the water.
I have all the makings of a climate scientist of the Flannery breed.

Unfortunately, you don’t meet the prerequisites.
- You are promoting the idea one should measure something!
- You don’t have enough hysteria in your tone!
- You must make claims! For example, declare we will run out of water in 5 years time!
- You don’t have enough political clout to influence Govt such they end up wasting billions of taxpayer’s money. (See decommissioned desalination plants).
- You have not released an Alarmist paper for the media to pick up. See “The Angry Summer”.
- You don’t have your own “Climate Commission”; where your staff consumes from premium Italian coffee machines on the taxpayer’s dime.
I hate to say it, toorightmate, but you ain’t Flannery enough!

If Flannery and his warmists stopped pi$$ing themselves each time someone published a new consequence of climate change they could prevent increases in sea level rise, sea temperature, and ocean acidity without government grants.

The whole point, is getting government grants to produce ersatz whiffle dust coated reports, that the government can use to justify budget expenditure on all sorts of jollies for the Blokes and Shelias.

In the southern hemisphere a southward migration of the Subtropical Front is a poleward migration and would have been mirrored in the northern hemisphere.

This accords with my view that changes in the energy balance of the Earth system are countered by latitudinal climate zone shifting and changes in the zonality / meridionality of the jet stream tracks.

Such changes happen all the time as a result of variability in sun and oceans and the solar influence is the primary forcing agent which works either via the Milankovitch cycles to move the Earth in and out of ice ages or via the mechanism I described here:

for shorter climate cycling on time scales of 1000 to 1500 years or less.

The question I have often asked of AGW proponents (to no avail) is how far they think our CO2 emissions might have shifted the climate zones if one accepts that CO2 has a net warming effect (I am doubtful that it has any but that is another matter).

My guess would be that the effect would be too small to measure compared to natural variations.

“many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.”

Whether you look at temps or sea levels, the whole climate history of the Holocene looks like a dropped noodle (after cooking) or broken bottles after New Year’s Eve. A short time ago this fact would not have been called into question by anybody. It is still accepted on one level of the collective mind. Yet there seems now to be a special add-on department or level of the collective mind which can only accept past climate as a straight line interrupted at this end, or something which is undeniably all wobbles – but not to be glanced at, let alone mentioned.

Now how can that be? Before we stabilise the climate by giving more money to rogues or erecting more white elephants…just when was this stable period? Or did I miss it while I was in the bathroom?

If I have understood this correctly, we have about 2 degrees K ocean cooling occurring 10-8,000 years B.P. (with the caveat that no data on ocean temperatures below 150m are presented), which might suggest that Trenberth’s mechanism for returning heat from the ocean to the atmosphere had a good opportunity to work. So let’s do the math as they say. Start by assuming it was confined to the Southern Pacific (area 84,750,000km^2 according to http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html )

Annie,
Your predictive text was on the right track.The English words,optimism and pessimism are derived from the Latin words, optimus(best) and pessimus(worst).
Perhaps the best way to stay optimistic and warm during a Pessimum would be to try………rolling on the floor laughing.

Scientists have predicted that this year will be an El Niño year. That will bring storms to the U.S. West, which might (or might not) save areas such as Texas and California that are parched with drought (Texas 90% drought free)

In a study published today in Science, Matthieu Carré of the French National Center for Scientific Research in Montpellier and colleagues reconstructed 10,000 years of past sea surface temperatures from the fossilized shells of Mesodesma donacium clams on the coast of Peru.

When science comes out and says it knows what the ocean temp was 10,000 years ago,I say b******t!
Ice cores are as reliable as the BoM – see “Glacier Girl”, a P-38 recovered from the ice of Greenland after 50 ,years,it was 268 feet down.

[quoted]
Compared with other frontal systems of the world ocean, the Subtropical Front is relatively weak, displaying a temperature contrast of about 2C and a salinity contrast of about 0.5 over a distance of 200 km.
This combines with large short-term and seasonal variability of its location and a high incidence of eddy formation and eddy shedding and explains why the STF is rarely seen in atlas data of ocean climate properties based on long-term mean distributions.
The STF is, however, a very distinct feature in any meridional crossing of the subtropics and can be seen in synoptic data to at least 250 m depth.
————-

This gives me the impression that there was a significant shift or difference compared to today in the track of the major ocean currents during that era which might or might not have been a relatively short lived event.
But in any case that possible shift could have led to a localised warming only as found in the proxy planktonic and benthic foraminifera from the core.

Another question relates to the Anchovy fisheries off Peru and Chile which is the biggest fishery in the world with an annual [ controlled and policed ] tonnage catch of ranging from 4.2 to 8.3 million tonnes per year.
Anchovies being a cold water fish just plain disappear from the Peruvian and Chilean coastal waters when a El Nino brings warmer waters to those Peruvian and Chilean Pacific ocean margin waters.
The tonnages of anchovies caught during last years very mild almost El Nino dropped to some 2 million tonnes as the anchovies fail to breed in the warmer, much lower nutrient waters of an El Nino event.
Which is how the “El Nino” got its name from the spanish speaking Peruvian fishermen as the anchovies on a somewhat regular basis of every few years failed to turn up around the usual time of Christmas. the time of the Christ child, the boy child.
So no fish. No “boy child” or “El Nino” to those Peruvian fishermen of the past centuries.

The Anchovies are most likely to have been following those eastern Pacific cold water currents for some hundreds of centuries past so I again suspect that this core merely measures a localised warming from a short term shift, “short” in terms of paleo history, in the Oceans Sub Tropical Front.

The other question I have is in relation to the genetic variability of the proxies used, the planktonic and benthic foraminifera (Neogloboquadrina dutertrei and Uvigerina spp.

A 100 centuries is a heck of a long time for genetic stability to remain constant in the reactions of rapidly turning over life forms that are subject to a constantly changing range of water temperatures such as the planktonic and benthic foraminifera used as the proxies experience and which are then used for deriving the small range of water temperatures claimed in the paper as being derived from the core.

It would only require a small genetic shift by the planktonic and benthic foraminifera as a rapid adaption to changing water temperatures to challenge this paper and its claims.

I don’t know anywhere where any suggested shifts in the genetics over time of these fairly universally used ocean temperature fossil proxy planktonic and benthic foraminifera have been examined to check if all the ocean temperature research based on these types of short lived fossils has been closely examined.

No doubt the paper is somewhere near correct but I think that like every paper published these types of questions plus many others are well worth asking.

I cannot see why it is “devastating”. Also I think the study is discussing cooling of the ocean, not warming.

It is not valid to compare Ocean Heat Content (OHC) with Sea Surface Temperature. One is an average in the water column measured, the other is the temperature of just one part of the water column, the bit that more-or-less couples with the atmosphere above.

.
Harry Twinotter @ #16
.
It seems your sense of humour, if it ever existed which is likely to be very doubtful as in Green and climate change cult believers, “humour” is a very rare commodity and consequently is hardly ever seen in Green and alarmist writings.
All of which makes it highly likely that you can’t quite comphrehend that maybe Jo had her tongue in her cheek when she used “Devastating” as a descriptive term in her headline.
“Devastating” is probably the single most used descriptive term which the Greens and climate alarmists describe anything and everything including the barren and unfulfilled predictions of the climate models plus anything weather that the greens and alarmists think is not a normal charracteristic of the earth’s climate and weather systems which is just about everything except the Sun rising and setting.
Everything else they promptly blame mankind as being responsible for the supposed “devastation” of what ever it is that is being “devastated” all over again for the umpteenth time.
The most recent example being the Green described “Devastation” of the Great Barrier Reef which was a monstrous lie even when putting the best construct on the greens claims.
So I would suggest HT that seeing you are critical of Jo for using “devastating” in her headline even as a tongue in cheek giggle at those very regular users of the term and of your ideological green and alarmist faith, maybe you should put a copyright on the word “devastating” to ensure that the likes of yourself and those of your ideological beliefs are the ONLY ones allowed to use “Devastating” as a descriptive term when ever you chose to do so which from past experience is pretty damn often.

“Rate of change in Temperature, accelerating rise in oceans and land speed of slugs”

It is gratifying to know that even with temperature change of 0.005C/yr, there are species that will survive.

In a previous post by Jo, In which she referenced a science paper..
It stated that the oceans were rising at an accelerated rate of 0.0017mm/yr ( +/- 1 meter, with 95% total accuracy, and with complete confidence… )

It seems that the super fast “banana slug” which is said to reach speeds of 0.000023 m/s will easily outrun this.